A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSISby Christine Bowman
So long, 1968.
Chicago's Grant Park, October 31, 2008 (Tribune photo)
Many would say that Illinois Senator Barack Obama is poised to address a huge crowd of happy Democrats in Chicago's Grant Park on Tuesday night. If he stands there on November 4th as America's President-Elect, Chicago's lakefront park will get a long-overdue do-over and the opportunity to erase at last the shameful memory of what happened there as the Democratic Party's Nominating Convention met across the street in a hotel ballroom in 1968.
That other time when Democrats came together in Grant Park, it absolutely was not to express their unity. Instead, an intra-party battle played out before television cameras, to the protesters' chants of "The Whole World Is Watching." Change was pitted against the status quo. The young and angry challenged the middle aged and powerful. It called forth the worst from both sides.
The bloodshed and scars of 1968, both physical and emotional, have yet to fully fade. If they had, the specter of a student radical, Bill Ayers, would have been laughable to all in this 2008 presidential election. The Black Panthers of the 1960s were so scary to some white Americans that they actually are still afraid -- they fear even Barack Obama, because radical black leaders back then threatened them. The power of fear-mongering by the McCain campaign and its most right-leaning contingency has its roots in what played out in 1968. So many American citizens have never feared one another, before or since, like they did in 1968. Real riots, real assassinations, real violence inflicted even by the supposed peace-keepers in cities and on campuses across the nation. The unforgettable 1968 crime scene of Chicago was Grant Park.
Grant Park, surely, has been the scene of countless good times in the ensuing years. Every year there is a stirring Independence Day celebration at the lakefront setting. Mobs in the millions turn out each summer for the week-long Taste of Chicago food orgy. Lollapalooza rock music festivals and six Chicago Bulls Championship celebrations have drawn huge happy crowds to Grant Park. But none of that was about moving on from 1968.
It has taken the Democratic Party, the City of Chicago, and the nation of The United States of America a full forty years to get over 1968. Barack Obama is giving us that chance at last. There's poetry in that. Oh, what a night.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS by Christine Bowman
Will the GOP repackage Palin to tug at voters' heartstrings?
Jill Zuckman scored a rarity in this campaign season -- an exclusive interview with Sarah Palin. Zuckman's write-up for today's Chicago Tribune is, sadly, little more than a campaign puff piece.
The softball questions and the way the article is edited allowed Palin to push her talking points and avoid any stumbles on the eve of delivering her first, and perhaps only, national speech on a public policy issue, a talk on children with special needs. There's no mention of Palin being deposed Friday by an independent investigator working for the Alaska personnel board, either.
Instead, Zuckman began by giving Palin her chance to deflect criticism of expenditures on Palin family clothing, hairstyles and makeup -- the $150,000 RNC outlay for the month of September. Palin asserted that she and her family are "frugal," and she allowed as how "It's kind of painful to be criticized ..." Zuckman didn't follow up or ask how the Neiman Marcus shopping spree jives with the campaign's Joe the Plumber talking point.
As transition into talking about any policy issues, Zuckman paused to portray Palin as a hapless victim. "Thrust into the national spotlight [to the contrary, Palin leapt into the fray with nary "a blink"] ... Palin has found herself [note passive sentence construction] under the microscope ever since, accused [there's the victim card again] of being inexperienced, a drag on the ticket, and most recently the recipient of racks of expensive clothes." Which part of that isn't true?
Palin also turned the exclusive interview into an opportunity to reestablish the link in voters' minds between herself and Senator Hillary Clinton. "I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard ... remember that double standard. ... I'm not going to complain about it, I'm not going to whine about it ..." Palin said, as she complained and whined about reports critical not of how she looked but of what the RNC spent to make Palin and her family look their best. Palin and her campaign are being criticized for conspicuous spending. Scrutiny of Clinton's look year in and year out was much more personal.
Zuckman did eventually let Palin preview her policy speech about funding for children with special needs. Zuckman summarized but did not analyze the McCain/Palin proposals. It appears that McCain and Palin want to piggyback two conservative issues -- school choice legislation and channeling funds to religious groups -- with more fully providing for such children. Instead of a "clean" bill, would theirs be a complex one that will be fought by special interests types and then defeated?
Then comes the piece de resistance and grand finale of Zuckman's hard-hitting journalism:
Palin's eyes well up as she talks about her sister's son, Karcher, who has autism."My sister and I have talked a lot about this. It makes me cry thinking about it," Palin said. "She asked with tears in her eyes, she says, 'What happens when Kurt and I, though, are elderly, then what happens to Karcher?' "
Palin's eyes well up as she talks about her sister's son, Karcher, who has autism.
"My sister and I have talked a lot about this. It makes me cry thinking about it," Palin said. "She asked with tears in her eyes, she says, 'What happens when Kurt and I, though, are elderly, then what happens to Karcher?' "
Well, nice try repainting Sarah Barracuda, Sarah the Moose Hunter, Sarah the Pit Bull as Sarah the Sensitive.
Last January, many pundits and campaign poobahs were impressed and puzzled when Hillary Clinton pulled out a win in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, despite all the polls and many of the pundits having predicted that Obama had the state and even the nomination sewn up. When Hillary Clinton won, many concluded that her tearful on-camera comments about how hard it all was, made the critical difference. They figured voters liked the humanized, femininized candidate and came out to support her at the polls in droves.
That may or may not have been what happened. There are other plausible theories floating around on what happened in New Hampshire.
At any rate, it looks like the McCain/Palin team feels this sensitizing thing is at least worth a try. They can see how it flies. I wonder, did the GOP get Palin's teary-eyed moment on camera? And will their timing prove to be good enough? Stay tuned.
Interview transcript is here.
Obama campers, don't forget "Dewey Wins!"
Most polling now shows Obama pulling ahead of McCain. But could the pollsters be showing us an instant replay of the erroneous polling they did in January for the New Hampshire primary?
Remember the primary contest early this year, where the pollsters all got it wrong? Or, maybe Hillary Clinton's tears turned the tide. Who really knows? That's my point.
Here's what Barack Obama told supporters in Virginia a few days ago:
We are 18 days away from changing this country. 18 days! But for those of you who are getting a little cocky, who support me, and start reading the polls. I just got two words for you: New Hampshire. Everybody thought we were going to win them in the Primary. We were up 10 in the polls, day before the election, and we ended up losing. We were up in Texas and Ohio in the Primary, we ended up losing. You can't pay attention to the polls. We've got to keep making our case for change. We've got to keep fighting for every vote. We've got to keep running through the finish line. This election is too important. We can't take anything for granted. The future that you seek and I seek for our children is too important to let up now. The time for change has come. We can do this. Americans have done it before but I need you to stand up. Stand up for change! I need you to make phone calls, I need you to do a blackberry, I need you to talk to your friends and yours neighbors. And if you all work with me, and organize with me, we will not just not win Virginia, we will win this general election. And, you and I together we gonna change this country and change the world. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
Events on the ground sometimes change results, and other times polling is just not good enough to predict an outcome.
Are the Polls Accurate? (Michael Barone, WS)
The Obama campaign organization certainly has built an impressive force of boots on the ground. Paid and volunteer Obama workers essentially have realized the "50-state strategy" championed by DNC Chair Howard Dean. They have challenged McCain throughout the country.
Now it's up to that army of supporters to deliver. If they are to succeed in these final days, they'll need both blindfolds and earplugs to block out the good news for Obama coming from pollsters.
* * *
Latest AP-GfK Roper Presidential Poll, October 16-20 [10 point Obama lead among Total Respondents; 1 point spread among Likely Voters]
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
The big question for tonight's debate? What would McCain or Obama do about the economy, and can either candidate keep America from spiraling down into a long-term economic depression?
Obama and McCain are certain to talk about their economic plans and philosophies tonight. Voters will be asking themselves which candidate makes better sense and whether either can stop the country's financial tailspin or offer them any personal financial lifelines.
First, let it be said: "Trickle down" and "voodoo" economics has had its day. In large part, America's ideological embrace of the "free market" and banking deregulation and unrestrained capitalist opportunism brought us to this current sad state of economic affairs. Unprincipled D.C. lobbying was another contributing factor. We've seen the rich get richer (at least until suffering through Wall Street's dramatic swings); the poor have become poorer; and now the middle class, essentially in limbo, is just hoping to hang on. They do want dependable health care and to keep their homes and jobs. The longer wish list would also include affordable higher education and energy, and, someday, a decent retirement.
Second, the personal leadership and vision that either candidate can offer -- not just the content of policy proposals -- is vital to the country's economic recovery. Can Obama or McCain inspire confidence? Can either motivate citizens, and Congress, to pull together to make changes? Will either maintain calm through this stormy period? What quality of advice are they themselves getting? These factors, as much as 4-point plans, will affect how voters vote and how the country fares.
That said, there are big differences in the candidates' policy ideas.
McCain's plan, as summarized by The Chicago Tribune, is heavy on tweaking income tax rules. It also proposes allowing homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages to switch to a fixed rate. On the taxation side, McCain:
Those are changes that could help a lot of people if McCain could get Congress to go along, but they don't seem to address many institutional issues. This is not a change of direction. Most notably, the changes impact only select groups, chiefly older Americans and those with investments. If you work but don't have a stock portfolio or an adjustable rate mortgage, does McCain have anything for you?
Now, what about Obama? His plan:
These ideas are more far-reaching than the McCain proposals. The first idea seeks to help business owners and working people in one stroke. It creates a situation in which what's good for one is also good for the other. The second idea, like some of McCain's proposals, tweaks tax policy to provide increased flexibility, thereby helping families that have savings; the third links a benefit for financial institutions to a benefit for their middle class customers, so bankers and homeowners are both winners; and the last binds local and federal governments together in their effort to provide essential services to citizens. We're all in this together, in essence, and local governments and our neediest citizens aren't left to take the economic hit alone.
Our economic crisis did not happen in one day or because of one person's actions. It won't be corrected simply by electing a new president. But voters want to know what kind of leadership McCain and Obama will provide on this critical issue. America's lame duck president has a huge crisis on his hands. Voters really need to know, and really need to decide, what's up next for America. Obama and McCain will be judged on this tonight, and America will move forward.
The candidates' economic proposals (The Chicago Tribune)
Hey! Election day is already here for voters who live in the 36 states* that allow early voting. Your favorite candidates will thank you for getting the job done ahead of time, since it means they will need fewer resources to keep reminding you to turn out on November 4. Not only does it help the campaigns, it can benefit you in lots of ways. Election integrity experts recommend early voting, too.
It definitely means you can use election day to volunteer, to help others vote, to work at the polling place, or do whatever you feel most needs doing besides registering your own personal vote.
Voting early also frees you up to follow the election coverage as much as you would like to on the internet and through other news sources. And because I voted early, I will be able to post election updates at BuzzFlash uninterrupted by a run to my own polling place.
And here's another bonus. If you vote early, you may receive fewer robo-calls to your home phone and fewer election fliers in your mailbox.
Early voting in Illinois kicked off on Monday, October 13. At my polling place, turnout included many teachers, who were able to vote because they had the Columbus Day holiday off from their jobs. Expectant parents were in evidence, too, who now won't have to juggle feeding schedules or painting the nursery with getting to their crowded polling places.
The weather was beautiful in Chicago yesterday. No annoying snow storms or cold winds for yesterday's early voters. That's something voters nationwide should take into consideration. If you beat the rush, you can also avoid every hurricane, fire, rain storm, flood, or any other unexpected problem. Even a shortage of voting machines, excessively long waits, or challenges to your voter registration or eligibility can be overcome if you turn out early.
If you've been following the campaigns for months (or years), and you know who you support, why wait and vote with the late deciders? Why put yourself at the mercy of election officials who are likely to be swamped by record turn-outs?
Vote now. You'll be surprised how good the future feels.
[Early voters might want to check online for local voting help. In the Chicago area, for instance, the website of the Clerk of Cook County, provides sample ballots, early voting information, and lots of handy information. Once you see a sample ballot, you have the choice of researching any offices where the candidates and issues are not already known to you. In Cook County, that's typically the judges.]
Poor John McCain. He is struggling. He knows he should never have said on September 15th, "still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong." His people told him to back away from that, since it sounded a lot like Herbert Hoover's response in 1929.
So before arriving at his next campaign stop, John made up some new nonsense claiming that "fundamentals" clearly means workers. That was a new use of the word for sure. Usually "fundamentals" refers to the hard numbers and realities underlying investment opportunities, as opposed to marketing spin or speculation or opinion. Now for election purposes, John has found a new word to use when pandering to the blue collar demographic. Fundamental voters. Not to be confused with fundamentalist voters.
Today John was on all the network shows explaining what he said about the meltdown in the financial and banking sectors. He calls it a "crisis." He proposes a commission to study the crisis.
John, I hate to break it to you, but "crisis" and "commission" don't really fit together in the same sentence. A crisis requires crisis management, rapid response, decisive leadership, doesn't it? A commission is a body that takes its time to deliberate and investigate and recommend long-term systemic solutions.
So either, you are wrong that it is a crisis, or wrong that what's needed is a commission.
John, events unfolding inconveniently in this election cycle suggest that you have been fundamentally wrong about this economy.
John, you now say "tougher rules" and "reform" are needed, but your campaign advocates no fundamental shift from long-time GOP economic policy. You believe in the economic course that you and your anti-regulatory GOP gurus like Phil Gramm have charted over a period of years and decades.
John, do you think you have chosen the right words when you promise voters "Change" or "Straight Talk" or "Reform"? Your GOP has been reforming the economy since the Reagan years, with deregulation as the centerpiece of your reform. "Reform" generally doesn't mean "status quo" or "more of the same."
This morning, John, you told Matt Lauer that excess, greed, corruption, and mismanagement on Wall Street are to blame. Is that the "few bad apples" argument? If so, who are the bad apples and evil doers that have attacked the international financial markets? Are you sure there's not something systemic wrong, causing massive problems on a worldwide scale?
You also told CNN, John:
"We will come back from this crisis, but right now we are the victim of greed, excess and corruption in Wall Street which is hurting them very, very badly and, unfortunately, it will in the future, but I believe in the American worker and I believe the American worker is the fundamental strength and future of America."
That's a little confusing, John. Do you think workers are victims, and if you do, who has victimized them? Or are American workers "fundamentals"?
We need a little straighter talk John, because you have, frankly, lost us in the spin.
-- Christine Bowman
Obama's Words? They Could Be Better. Messaging, Framing and the Political Narrative of Election 2008.
Barack Obama is known as a man of powerful words. His 2004 convention speech, which he wrote himself, set the bar. It will be hard to top, as the candidate himself has said, when he speaks again to the nation tonight.
It's true and politically important that Barack Obama mesmerizes crowds with his best speeches, and his campaign catchwords of "Change" and "Hope" and "Yes, we can" ignited America's imagination. But has Obama figured out yet how to control the direction of the campaign with his words? How to frame the national debate? How to create a narrative that will win him the election? How to paint John McCain?
Not necessarily. Not entirely.
The Republicans have earned the grudging respect and envy of Democratic operatives with their skillful messaging and framing in recent years. Republicans scored mortal hits with their talking points and framing in 2004. John Kerry could never shake the "flip-flopping," "latte-liberal," "French" labels that the GOP operatives created for him and rolled out at their convention. It was a narrative that held together and resonated with GOP voters. Then the Swift Boat story finished Kerry off.
Democrats can't bear the thought of a repeat of that in 2008.
Savvy academics and political analysts have thought long and hard about what happened in 2004, and they've shared their wise advice widely. BuzzFlash.com interviewed many of these writers and thinkers and encouraged our readers to read their books and articles: George Lakoff. Paul Waldman. Drew Westen. Paul Krugman. Tom Cathcart and Daniel Klein. And most recently, Dr. Bryant Welch.
But has the advice about shaping the message, defining the debate, and creating a powerful narrative reached Obama's team and sunk in?
Not much, it seems. The pattern remains that McCain and surrogates insinuate and attack; Obama responds. It goes as follows, more or less:
McCain: Obama is inexperienced! Obama: I'm more experienced than you think, and we have Joe Biden.
McCain: Obama is an unknown quantity! Obama: I'm a nice guy. I love my family and believe in God.
McCain: Obama is an out-of-touch elite! Obama: Do you know the price of arugula? And, hey, I have just one house.
McCain: Barack and Michelle aren't patriotic! Obama: Read my lapel pin.
McCain: Obama won't keep you safe! Obama: Yes, I can.
It's reactive. It's sometimes weak. Americans reject weak.
As John McCarron wrote in a Chicago Tribune op-ed: "... the junior senator from Illinois continues to play defense ... Rather than carry the fight to the Republicans over, say, their central role in the foreclosure catastrophe—a genuine national crisis—Obama lets his opponent shift the national spotlight onto phony issues, such as support for offshore drilling. As if lining our coastlines with oil rigs is somehow going to roll back the $4 gallon of gasoline or turn back the pace of global warming."
NY Times columnist Frank Rich also wrote this week that Obama needs to make the narrative about the "fierce urgency of now" -- a topic on which McCain can have nothing to say. "Economic anxiety is the new terrorism. ... How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars."
At BuzzFlash, we agree with McCarron and Rich. We'd like Obama and his team to ingest all the wisdom that analysts have put out about how best to tell a progressive political story. Voters need some shorthand, and they need an emotional framework, some cherished values, on which to hang the many policy questions. And Obama shouldn't be playing defense when it's the incumbents who deserve the lion's share of blame for the mess we are in as a country.
Obama must create and stick to his own strong framework for the political war of words -- and he needs to do it now before the GOP operatives really get rolling with their newest messaging. Their convention starts in just a few days.
Paul Waldman in Being Right Is Not Enough says that candidates have to have a three-part narrative if they want to win: A, Here's the problem. B, Here is the solution. C, Here's why only I can deliver the solution. Obama certainly should do that on the economy. He can also do it on restoring American prestige and pride.
Drew Westen at Huffington Post says, don't make it a referendum on Barack Obama, but one on the GOP/Bush/McCain years. Make it about the opponent. McCain's "ideas and epithets (e.g., 'tax and spend liberal') are old and tired [and] ... he is filled with 20th century solutions to 21st century problems."
George Lakoff, author of Don't Think of an Elephant, warns it's self-defeating to argue within the framework chosen by the opposition. You should talk about your values and issues on your own terms. When McCain links Obama to assorted GOP bogeymen, Obama can't just deny or protest the link. That reinforces it. Instead, he must present his own policies in the context of progressive values. "We're all in this together" is one such values frame that makes many Democratic policies make sense. Universal health care, as an example, is a family value; not, as the GOP have argued, an example of government gone bad with overreach.
Dr. Bryant Welch, a clinical psychologist, warns that Obama must not laugh off McCain's Paris Hilton type ads that paint the Democratic candidate as a wildly popular celebrity. What's wrong with those ads or that association? Contrary to McCain's disingenuous claim that it's just a bit of humor, the ads are "sophisticated and dangerous" (Dr. Welch's words) because they exploit the carefully planted idea that Obama has achieved fame and power without earning either. They exploit the feelings of people who, at some level, ask, why has Obama got it all, and not me? It isn't fair; he isn't deserving; who does he think he is? In other words, the messaging taps deep-seated envy and redirects anger for life-long slights and disappointments towards the "more fortunate" candidate. Irrational? Yes. Effective? Yes. It leaves voters "just not liking" Obama. And it drives up his negatives. Voters who vote their guts instead of their heads will reject the celebrity.
To be fair, Obama and his team of advisers clearly understand some of these messaging issues. They learned from Kerry that you do not ignore slurs and slams, and they've created a response team and web page to dispute false messages.
But it's still reactive. It's playing defense. The McCain campaign is still telling the Obama campaign what they must talk about.
It's time for Obama to turn that around. Summer is over, and voters will be listening.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/368
Christine Bowman tells us why Obama and Biden are the Kobe and Lebron of this election:
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSISby Christine BowmanNot the "Dream Team." But America may have its true "Redeem Team." Denver this week won't be the same mega-extravaganza just presented in Beijing, which is a good thing. But both Beijing and Denver will have a "Redeem Team," along with drama and fireworks, first-rate performances, some inevitable stumbles, and round-the-clock reporting. At the Olympics, the USA men's basketball team was dubbed the "Redeem Team" since they were tasked with reclaiming gold from Argentina who beat the usually dominant USA team in Athens in 2004. Now in the political arena, America's Democratic "Redeem Team" of Barack Obama and Joe Biden must reclaim the White House that was snatched away from Al Gore in 2000 by Team George W. Bush. Richard Perry/The New York Times Presumably in Athens the basketball gold medalists won their position fair and square. The same can't be said, necessarily, of Florida 2000, where a conservative-led Supreme Court, a biased Florida secretary of state, and some rowdy Republican operatives posing as voters in Miami succeeded in overriding the popular vote count and the Florida Supreme Court to put their nominee in the White House. It didn't help, either, in 2000, that a Bush relative at the Fox News Network ("Fair and Balanced") called the election for Bush prematurely, or that "Today Show" hosts and pundits in general ridiculed the painstaking process of trying to count Americans' votes that were in dispute due to flawed mechanisms of the voting process."Ha, ha. Hanging chads!" Why doesn't Al Gore see the humor there? It's been a very long eight years for Democrats since then, but this week's convention finally represents a long-awaited turning point and chance for redemption. Obama won his victory in the primaries by offering "Change you can believe in," and change sounded real good to Americans. Many voters and pundits also liked the idea of a Democratic "Dream Team" consisting of Obama and Clinton. But that was not to be, for a complex of reasons, which probably will be made clearer this week by the Democratic Convention speakers, including Hillary Clinton herself.No, it won't be that "Dream Team." Instead it will be the "Redeem Team." No oil men in the Oval Office this time, and no new tax cuts for the super wealthy. No new missed Presidential Daily Briefings or wars of choice. No more neocons "baiting the Russian bear" or other dangerous saber rattling on the international stage. Most of all, no more lies and bluster.This time with Obama and Biden carrying the banner, they'll do it for grassroots America instead of for the military-industrial guys at the top of the economic and power-brokering heap. They will run against Enron-style market manipulation, and run for the 48 million medically uninsured. They'll think about voters who struggle to make one mortgage payment or their monthly rent, not about their friends with five houses or an executive role in the sub-prime lending business. They will run on common sense and uniting to solve problems, instead of on wedge issues.Granted, America has lost a lot of ground since 2000. We've borrowed from China to pay for wars and tax cuts that didn't make sense. We've lost jobs, lost personal income, lost international credibility. All that won't be easy to reclaim. Obama and Biden get that in a way that John McCain never will. Good soldier that he once was, John McCain is stuck in the neocon rut now, ensconced in the gilded world of gated communities.And Al Gore, who would have made a great president in 2000, has "moved on." He succeeded in getting America to talk about global warming, and Al now has his Nobel Prize, his Oscar, and an Emmy. But this 2008 "Redeem Team" has Al Gore's blessing. Obama and Biden are the team with a vision of something better, and the chops to get it done. Like the USA men's Olympic basketball team of 2008, they are the real deal. This year our Olympians not only dominated on the court to reclaim the gold; they restored pride to America by demonstrating discipline and class. Elections matter, and sometimes a lot. Our U.S. Constitution lets voters call for a fresh start every four years, but we didn't quite get there in 2004. This year, redemption is the name of the game, just as much as "Change" is. This time, we must unleash our "Redeem Team" and bring America back to its principles and prosperity.A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Not the "Dream Team." But America may have its true "Redeem Team."
Denver this week won't be the same mega-extravaganza just presented in Beijing, which is a good thing. But both Beijing and Denver will have a "Redeem Team," along with drama and fireworks, first-rate performances, some inevitable stumbles, and round-the-clock reporting.
At the Olympics, the USA men's basketball team was dubbed the "Redeem Team" since they were tasked with reclaiming gold from Argentina who beat the usually dominant USA team in Athens in 2004. Now in the political arena, America's Democratic "Redeem Team" of Barack Obama and Joe Biden must reclaim the White House that was snatched away from Al Gore in 2000 by Team George W. Bush.
Richard Perry/The New York Times
Presumably in Athens the basketball gold medalists won their position fair and square. The same can't be said, necessarily, of Florida 2000, where a conservative-led Supreme Court, a biased Florida secretary of state, and some rowdy Republican operatives posing as voters in Miami succeeded in overriding the popular vote count and the Florida Supreme Court to put their nominee in the White House. It didn't help, either, in 2000, that a Bush relative at the Fox News Network ("Fair and Balanced") called the election for Bush prematurely, or that "Today Show" hosts and pundits in general ridiculed the painstaking process of trying to count Americans' votes that were in dispute due to flawed mechanisms of the voting process.
"Ha, ha. Hanging chads!" Why doesn't Al Gore see the humor there?
It's been a very long eight years for Democrats since then, but this week's convention finally represents a long-awaited turning point and chance for redemption. Obama won his victory in the primaries by offering "Change you can believe in," and change sounded real good to Americans. Many voters and pundits also liked the idea of a Democratic "Dream Team" consisting of Obama and Clinton. But that was not to be, for a complex of reasons, which probably will be made clearer this week by the Democratic Convention speakers, including Hillary Clinton herself.
No, it won't be that "Dream Team." Instead it will be the "Redeem Team." No oil men in the Oval Office this time, and no new tax cuts for the super wealthy. No new missed Presidential Daily Briefings or wars of choice. No more neocons "baiting the Russian bear" or other dangerous saber rattling on the international stage. Most of all, no more lies and bluster.
This time with Obama and Biden carrying the banner, they'll do it for grassroots America instead of for the military-industrial guys at the top of the economic and power-brokering heap. They will run against Enron-style market manipulation, and run for the 48 million medically uninsured. They'll think about voters who struggle to make one mortgage payment or their monthly rent, not about their friends with five houses or an executive role in the sub-prime lending business. They will run on common sense and uniting to solve problems, instead of on wedge issues.
Granted, America has lost a lot of ground since 2000. We've borrowed from China to pay for wars and tax cuts that didn't make sense. We've lost jobs, lost personal income, lost international credibility. All that won't be easy to reclaim. Obama and Biden get that in a way that John McCain never will. Good soldier that he once was, John McCain is stuck in the neocon rut now, ensconced in the gilded world of gated communities.
And Al Gore, who would have made a great president in 2000, has "moved on." He succeeded in getting America to talk about global warming, and Al now has his Nobel Prize, his Oscar, and an Emmy.
But this 2008 "Redeem Team" has Al Gore's blessing. Obama and Biden are the team with a vision of something better, and the chops to get it done. Like the USA men's Olympic basketball team of 2008, they are the real deal. This year our Olympians not only dominated on the court to reclaim the gold; they restored pride to America by demonstrating discipline and class.
Elections matter, and sometimes a lot. Our U.S. Constitution lets voters call for a fresh start every four years, but we didn't quite get there in 2004. This year, redemption is the name of the game, just as much as "Change" is. This time, we must unleash our "Redeem Team" and bring America back to its principles and prosperity.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/362
Check out our headlines about Obama this week: his take vs. McCain's on the economy, that ridiculous Washington Post misquote and more!
Read the stuff the mainstream media ignores or doesn't get quite right!
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/342 http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/340http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/339 http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/265http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/330 http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/250
BuzzFlash News is announcing its "America in 2012" video contest! Use your creativity and make a video of what you think the country will be like in 2012 after 4 years of an Obama, or worse--McCain, presidency.
http://youtube.com/user/buzzflashnews
Notable entries will be posted on our site and winners will get $500!
E-mail BuzzFlash@buzzflash.com with questions.
Check out the third video in our Obama series. This one takes a tongue-in-cheek look at Senator Obama's experience in the Illinois state senate in Springfield and why he might want to move on to bigger and better things...
As the largest progressive website between the coasts – and located in Chicago – we’ve become specialists on the campaign of Barack Obama as it relates to Illinois.Click here to watch BuzzFlash's newest video: Our roadtrip to Barack Obama's Springfield.Our coverage has included a growing number of videos about Obama’s roots in the Windy City and Land of Lincoln.Our first two Obama videos were:Senator Obama’s BarbershopSenator Obama’s NeighborhoodNow, we’re back with a third BuzzFlash Obama video:Why Senator Obama Left Springfield, shot on location in Springfield, Illinois, the Home of Abraham Lincoln.Watch it and send it around the Net. You’ll learn a thing or two about Barack Obama and Springfield. And there will be more BuzzFlash videos down the pike. Watch for them.
As the largest progressive website between the coasts – and located in Chicago – we’ve become specialists on the campaign of Barack Obama as it relates to Illinois.
Click here to watch BuzzFlash's newest video: Our roadtrip to Barack Obama's Springfield.
Our coverage has included a growing number of videos about Obama’s roots in the Windy City and Land of Lincoln.
Our first two Obama videos were:
Senator Obama’s Barbershop
Senator Obama’s Neighborhood
Now, we’re back with a third BuzzFlash Obama video:
Why Senator Obama Left Springfield, shot on location in Springfield, Illinois, the Home of Abraham Lincoln.
Be sure to check out the other two as well!
Dan Rather joined the ranks of many when he confused "Obama" and "Osama" but why did no one else correct him? Are we becoming too complacent?
BuzzFlash's Christine Bowman analyzes the response :
By way of indicating his long-standing respect for Jackson and his long work in civil rights, Rather acknowledged that Jackson had "paved the way for an Osama bin Laden." Nobody at MSNBC stopped to question or correct that. They went on talking about how "This is a historic campaign anyway you cut it." They discussed the meaninglessness of polls (the "Bradley effect") and that Obama's upcoming travels represent a big risk, but could yield potentially big gains. No one can deny Dan Rather is a well-informed and accomplished journalist. That's putting it mildly. He knows a thing or two. But Osama? Obama? Whatever ...Maybe it's time we admit that, in the human brain, there's some kind of something that fails us, somewhere between the conception of an idea and its iteration ...Of course, some right-wing and racist pontificators intentionally link the names Obama and Osama, just as they try to link the Democrats' choice for president with the Muslim faith. The hate-mongers take advantage of the fact that human brains seem to go fuzzy in quirky ways. They create and exploit false connections, knowing that people remember, and may come to believe, catchy comments or linked concepts that they hear over and over, regardless of truthfulness or a lack thereof.
By way of indicating his long-standing respect for Jackson and his long work in civil rights, Rather acknowledged that Jackson had "paved the way for an Osama bin Laden."
Nobody at MSNBC stopped to question or correct that.
They went on talking about how "This is a historic campaign anyway you cut it." They discussed the meaninglessness of polls (the "Bradley effect") and that Obama's upcoming travels represent a big risk, but could yield potentially big gains.
No one can deny Dan Rather is a well-informed and accomplished journalist. That's putting it mildly. He knows a thing or two. But Osama? Obama? Whatever ...
Maybe it's time we admit that, in the human brain, there's some kind of something that fails us, somewhere between the conception of an idea and its iteration ...
Of course, some right-wing and racist pontificators intentionally link the names Obama and Osama, just as they try to link the Democrats' choice for president with the Muslim faith. The hate-mongers take advantage of the fact that human brains seem to go fuzzy in quirky ways. They create and exploit false connections, knowing that people remember, and may come to believe, catchy comments or linked concepts that they hear over and over, regardless of truthfulness or a lack thereof.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/252
This week on BuzzFlash...
We compare Obama and McCain's June fund raising numbers:
The Obama campaign has consistently appealed to small donations from first-time donors and people who can only afford to donate small sums. Campaign manager David Plouffe has asked for as little as $5 in a video sent to supporters, and the campaign has encouraged $5 donations to be considered for backstage passes to the open convention. Obama's online donation form has a $10 option, while McCain's smallest is $25 (both have blank options as well.) McCain's campaign also has an option bubble for an $9200 joint contribution to a General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance (GELAC) Fund, since the maximum donation an individual can make to the campaign is $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general election.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/251
In our Be-Elected series, we explore what kind of Press Secretary Obama should select as president. Someone alreafy a part of the mainstream media, maybe? See who our readers suggested and add in your own!
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/247
Our columnist Phil Carpenter addresses the New Yorker cover and the dialogue that's followed:
Barack Obama has traveled the campaign trail emphasizing his Christian roots for, what, roughly a year now? Yet, in return, roughly one in ten voters still believes he had himself sworn in to the U.S. Senate on a Koran, about one in four thinks he grew up Muslim, and a staggering two in five have it fixed in their formidably unaware heads that he attended an Indonesian madrassa.And some say the New Yorker cover could do harm to Obama's image?
Barack Obama has traveled the campaign trail emphasizing his Christian roots for, what, roughly a year now?
Yet, in return, roughly one in ten voters still believes he had himself sworn in to the U.S. Senate on a Koran, about one in four thinks he grew up Muslim, and a staggering two in five have it fixed in their formidably unaware heads that he attended an Indonesian madrassa.
And some say the New Yorker cover could do harm to Obama's image?
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/127
